Use and impact of intermittent versus continuous systemic treatment strategies in metastatic colorectal cancer in routine practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have shown that intermittent treatment may reduce toxicity without compromising survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A population-based study examined patterns of use of chemotherapy-free intervals (CFIs) in routine practice in Ontario and their impact on survival and toxicity. METHODS: Patients treated with first-line intravenous chemotherapy for mCRC in Ontario between 2007 and 2009 were identified from administrative data. A CFI was defined as more than 56 days between 2 chemotherapy doses. A propensity score analysis was used to compare the survival of patients with CFIs and patients without CFIs, stratified by the type of first-line treatment: irinotecan (IRI), irinotecan plus bevacizumab (IRI-B), and oxaliplatin (OX). Toxicity was estimated on the basis of the rate of emergency room visits and hospitalizations. RESULTS: There were 1989 patients who started first-line chemotherapy for mCRC in Ontario between 2007 and 2009, and 489 (25%) had at least 1 CFI. The median time to the first CFI was 155 days (interquartile range, 82-217 days). There was no difference in survival for the propensity score-matched patients with or without CFIs in the IRI (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; P = .70) and OX groups (HR, 0.73; P = .06). Survival was worse in the CFI group for patients treated with IRI-B (HR, 1.28; P = .03). Toxicity was lower for patients with at least 1 CFI (0.17 vs 0.25 acute visits per person-month of treatment, P = .007), although the magnitude varied with the treatment type. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent treatment strategies are being used in routine practice for patients with mCRC. The impact on survival and toxicity varies with the type of first-line chemotherapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".